I think post count is kind of redundant with join date, and I rely more on join date. Some people post very seldom, but tend to post more relevantly than new members who just spam Mish Mash and (insert terrible developmental deck here) threads. Not that join date is the end-all be-all either, but it gives me more of an idea if the person's been reading for a while and more likely to have experience with the format.
If people think there is a serious merit to the idea of Adepts existing solely as a special status to encourage good posting, then I think it's obvious that the role of 'super-adepts' or some such as proposed by Spatula also has merit. There are certainly enough active and highly competent members that wouldn't mind the 'task' of guiding the DTB or a special 'Buzz' forum.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
If you guys honestly think that taking away post counts (or even hiding them) will end the bias against new users vs. regulars, you're kidding yourselves. You all know who has been on the site a while, and who is a newb. Taking away a physical representation of that status won't change it.Originally Posted by jazzykat
Why would it remove it from the general discussion if it got moved? It'd be the same as moving a deck in and out of the DTB forum.
The first one.2. Should we have 10 people elected who then choose 5 threads OR should we choose 5 threads and then choose 10 people for those threads?
Members nominate themselves for SA status.2a. Who will do all that choosing? Should Adepts vote on 5 threads and the general user-base choose the Buzz members? Or what?
Members vote on SAs.
SAs discuss and select threads for the Buzz forum.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
I'm not willfully being obtuse (maybe it comes naturally), but I assumed that the point of the Buzz Forum was to create a bit of a FishBowl discussion in which ONLY 10 people would dicuss 5 topics in a special forum and the rest of the site watched.
But what you're suggesting is that 10 people choose 5 topics to put in a Buzz Forum. The purpose of that forum is to point out interesting, relevant, exciting, whatever discussion. And anyone can post in that forum just as if it's the Established or N&D forum. But nobody can start new threads there.
Have I finally understood the full idea?
Correct. The role of the SAs would be to manage the forum and keep it relevant and exciting.I'm not willfully being obtuse (maybe it comes naturally), but I assumed that the point of the Buzz Forum was to create a bit of a FishBowl discussion in which ONLY 10 people would dicuss 5 topics in a special forum and the rest of the site watched.
But what you're suggesting is that 10 people choose 5 topics to put in a Buzz Forum. The purpose of that forum is to point out interesting, relevant, exciting, whatever discussion. And anyone can post in that forum just as if it's the Established or N&D forum. But nobody can start new threads there.
Have I finally understood the full idea?
Hopefully it would have the added bonus of giving people incentive to be clear, articulate, and researched in posting new deck ideas, since those people will be rewarded, hopefully, by having said new deck ideas given a spotlight.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
So, basically, this is what happens?
1) Members nominate themselves for the position of BUZZards. This means that every person on the site is in the running, because we're all conceited bastards.
2) Members vote on who gets to be a BUZZard. This means, we have one of two things:
a) everyone votes for themself.
b) Mods/Admins are left figuring out a way to select the winner.
3) We establish BUZZards. Admins are now required to change permissions for these members, and for the ones who are now relinquishing the title.
4) BUZZards vote on which threads go to the BUZZ forum. This takes forever, especially if NoVA gets a vote. God forbid they have any self-interest in a particular thread, and they just nominate their own pet deck to improve discussion on it. Mods/Admins are required to dig up the threads and move them, and move the old threads back to whence they came.
5) Repeat.
Bear in mind, this means a significant addition to the work required of the site staff - who, much to my dismay, can't even be convinced to demote inactive adepts.
Time to get some additional, new (as in 'not-burned out yet'), Mods?
Team SPOD - ...land of the brave...
Who the fuck appointed you New Mike Eddinger?
I'll reply when I'm off work.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
Been down that road, too. Problem is, the people who are in charge (see: Red names) like being in charge. And for the most part, they're pretty good at it, too. They're just suuuper lazy about doing some stuff.
I'm just being realistic. It's a lot of work to keep it running like that. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm saying you're promoting a system which places a burden of effort on a bunch of people who aren't you, and aren't really that upset by the status quo.
I like Bardo's idea of just keeping the colors the same, I have been reading this forum for a about a year now and posted pretty regularly for about 4 months and found that since I'm not atleast an adept for the source, my ideas that have gotten me many first place wins in a very tough(my opinion) meta, have been shut down because the adept didn't like the ideas. I think the adepts should just be erased completly.
But if we are to have an adept section, it should be done on people who have done well in tournys and have an actual ranking (or voted on by the thoughts of posts for the ones who don't have sanctioned tournies)and not chosen by friends or how many posts. I have talked to a couple of people about being an adept and I just get told that I have to prove myself(and don't explain how that is done.....now that I think about it, how do you prove yourself in a forum???) and then the adepts might think of voting to add more or not.
Yeah, and your little friends Clark (and his alter ego/alternate account Suckerpunch) and Cavius and Breathweapon and Radley and....ad infinitum on people who talk for the sake of hearing themselves talk. Post counts do provide a nice ego stroke, but the cost is far too high...also, it creates an illusion for new users that said person might actually play this format or have a clue, which is not necessarily the case.
TL,DR: if you think Saito is ok, check your moral compass. It may be broken. - Spikey Mikey, amen brother
WE know what the price of progress is (often 8-10 life). - Cait Sith
A casual stasis deck? You must not really like your friends. Do you play it before or after you pull the wings off of flys and microwave the neighbor's cat? - EwokSlayer
I don't see a problem with this: I'm not directly advocating replacing any of the experienced mod staff (which would only lead to a chaotic situation due to a lack of experience of the new mods) but to get more mods. This would spread the increasing workload on more shoulders to keep the 'pressure' on each individual the same, at least in the long run.
If you don't like the idea of too many people running around with the absolute bear (moderator) powers [tm], then you could introduce something like 'domain moderators' which would have mod-rights for only a limited area of the site - like have one or four guys in charge of this new fancy idea, have one or three guys in charge of that new fancy thingy etc.
Addressing everyone thinking so rather than you directly: can anyone link me to any posts/topics where this has actually taken place? I just can't recall anyone saying 'I'm right because I'm an Adept' lately.
Team SPOD - ...land of the brave...
I actually don't bother reading most posts from people with low post counts. I'd just rather read people who are established as intelligent. It saves time and I believe someone with a post count of 2,000+ probably has a good idea of what they're talking about. Theres the occasional Cavius, but people know whos a giant ass.
The whole problem is this: If you want to be an Adept, you have to be a little more scholarly and post more frequently and intelligently than a large percentage of signed-up users. Now, here's where a question arises:
Should we use the DCI Ranking System as an indicator who should be an Adept or not? The way it stands, the answer is a resounding "no". But it obviously takes a great deal of time, patience, and intelligence to do well in a difficult metagame and then devote extra time to progress the format in which you play. I just feel like the Adept system is a self-inflicted twisted popularity contest and nothing more. I've heard just as many good ideas from folks who aren't Adepts and share a wide variety of insight and analysis on some of their favorite decks than those who are.
But in defense for some of the Adepts, they share wisdom and intellect on different levels and that's what I like best: Diversity.
Is there a reason we can't have a Greek method for both Adepthood and Buzzhood? I will be a little more concise.
Ancient Greek citizens (men only, grrrrrr) were required to serve in public office for a given amount of time. In our case, we would change out Greek citizens for active users with atleast, uhh say, 200 posts, selected in some essentially random fashion. These users would simply be placed on the BUZZard (cute) committee for a month. A simple post indicating who is on for that month should do. There is no need to change any account settings. It is up to the user to demonstrate some sort of ability and knowledge during his/her tenured time in the spotlight - especially towards the decks that are also highlighted at that time. Only BUZZards can sound off on the Buzz decks which should be chosen by the outgoing BUZZards. That way, the entire community can see who deserves to be an Adept. We could have IBA's annual voting system, but you are only eligible if you were a BUZZard that year.
Not fully thought out, but almost.
Cranky Nightmare has a valid point - Spat's suggestion, as it is now, is a bit of work. I wonder if we can simplify it and still keep the heart of the suggestion. How about this:
We have Adepts vote on 5 decks to develop from N&D. In other words, each Adept chooses 5 N&D decks that they think has potential. The top 5 decks are then presented to the general membership and they vote on their favorite. The two rounds of voting should take no longer than 3 or 4 days each. That winning deck then gets stickied to the top of the N&D forum for about a month with a fancy tag like DTFo (Deck to Focus on) or something like that. Then the community can work on that deck. Maybe - and I'm not sure about this - we can even donate a prize to anyone who can prove he has T8ed in a 33plus tourney with that chosen deck in the past month.
Benefits:
1. Gives Adepts more to do
2. Gives members more to do
3. Focuses on a likely to be ignored deck
3a. Promotes diversity
So where does my version succeed? Where does it fail? Does it gut Spat's original idea too much?
And this will continue to be the case. There are a few reasons why: 1) Legacy is not Standard (i.e. Legacy events are few and far between in some parts of the world); 2) many legacy tournaments are not sanctioned (maybe because of proxies, maybe not); 3) good players do not necessarily make for good posters.
The effect of one or two will be to create a bias for posters in some regions where there are many sanctioned legacy tournaments. The players that do well there will likely be metagaming for those regions, so their ideas may not apply to how approach match-ups in, say, Heidelberg. Excellent legacy players who dominate areas where events are frequently not sanctioned (Pacific NW, from experience) will not be counted for completely artificial reasons. These are just a few problems with using tournament performance as your sole criteria.
Mainly, it's the third point. This is a DISCUSSION FORUM. The Adept Guidelines were carefully written to take a certain amount of play skill, deck design and development, creativity, rules knowledge, etc. into consideration. But all of that aside, no matter how fantastic of a deck-builder you are, no matter how high your DCI rating is, no matter how many ass-wrecking decks you build, if you can't post decently and be a valuable community member, none of that matters for being an Adept, and worthy of the "stamp of approval" or whatever it means to people. No one gets a free ride to be an asshole. If you can't fight the need to be an utter douche bag to others, fine, just do it somewhere else on the net.
About the application process you mentioned earlier, we actually wrote in a proviso to the adept guidelines to prohibit self-nomination. If you're a great poster and an asset to the online legacy community, you will be noticed and you'll get promoted (off the top of my head, Illussius, Lonelybaritone, Freakish, Nihil, etc.).
I still would love to see my idea implemented (everyone has the same color user name), for the reasons I stated earlier, for 30 days and see what kind of difference that makes. At the end of the day, I don't think there will be any meaningful difference: you'll still know who's worth listening to and who can be comfortably ignored, and that will be that.
I honestly hope that this:
And this:
are two completely unrelated statements (it looks like they refers to NoVA). And you are only desparaging the southern inability to make a definitive decision within a month, not inferring that we would promote some crappy (T.E.C.) deck we made to stroke our own ego.
~ Team Unicorn Motto
The two were not meant to be related. However, TEC was awesome.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote